Tax recovery auction and seized cash adjustment upheld where subsisting demand remained and no material irregularity was shown.

A tax recovery auction was examined on three points: the reserve price was upheld because it was fixed on a departmental valuation basis and was not shown to be arbitrary or below market value; the absence of a fresh sale proclamation after appellate reduction of part of the demand did not invalidate the sale because a substantial tax liability still remained and no material irregularity causing substantial injury was shown; and the plea that seized cash should have been adjusted differently toward tax dues failed because the adjustment had already been made and the contrary claim was unsupported. The sale confirmation and recovery proceedings were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the reserve price fixed for the auction sale of the immovable property was arbitrary or invalid. (ii) Whether the auction sale was vitiated for want of a fresh sale proclamation after the demand was modified by appellate orders. (iii) Whether the seized cash of Rs. 16,55,000 was required to be adjusted towards the petitioner's tax dues under the Income-tax Act.

Issue (i): Whether the reserve price fixed for the auction sale of the immovable property was arbitrary or invalid.

Analysis: The reserve price had been fixed on the basis of a departmental valuation report after consultation with departmental . The petitioner relied on an earlier wealth-tax valuation, but the valuation date was several years earlier and could not control the market value at the time of auction. No material was shown to establish that the reserve price was fixed without basis or that the property was sold below the then prevailing market value.

Conclusion: The challenge to the reserve price failed and the finding was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the auction sale was vitiated for want of a fresh sale proclamation after the demand was modified by appellate orders.

Analysis: The sale proclamation had been issued when the outstanding tax demand was subsisting. Before the auction, the appellate order reduced part of the demand, but a substantial balance continued to remain due, and additional demands for later assessment years had also been communicated and notices under the prescribed form had been served. The statutory scheme under the Second Schedule permits sale only where there is default, and the record did not disclose any material irregularity causing substantial injury. In the circumstances, the absence of a fresh proclamation did not invalidate the sale.

Conclusion: The auction sale was not vitiated on this ground and the finding was against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the seized cash of Rs. 16,55,000 was required to be adjusted towards the petitioner's tax dues under the Income-tax Act.

Analysis: The adjustment of seized cash had already been made towards the petitioner's and family members' tax liabilities, including payments made at the assessee's request. The plea that the entire amount should have been credited differently was raised belatedly, required factual investigation, and had not been specifically substantiated. The petition did not establish that there was no outstanding demand on the relevant dates.

Conclusion: The claim regarding non-adjustment of seized cash was rejected and the finding was against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The sale confirmation and recovery proceedings were upheld, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A tax recovery auction validly drawn on the basis of an existing demand is not invalidated merely because the demand is later reduced, so long as a substantial demand still subsists, no material irregularity causing substantial injury is shown, and the statutory requirements for setting aside the sale are not satisfied.

---